M
Mohammad Halai
Guest
On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:55:28 p.m. UTC-4, Mohammad Halai wrote:
Ive found an answer off a different forum here it is if your interested.
1) No, because it\'s actually going slower from your perspective. In special relativity, \"the fastest wristwatch is always your own\".
2) Yes, but remember that it\'s farther away from us now, so it will take some time to get to us (if it was travelling at 0.5c it will take 50% longer to get to us).
3) Mostly in that as an observer the redshift effect would be different.
4) It would be feasible to accelerate to dialate time, but that wouldn\'t be useful.
Since you only mention acceleration to 0.5c, we\'ll assume we\'re dealing with special relativity alone. In this case, your accelerating computer \'loses time\' -- its clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles.. Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from your point of view -- the computer on your desk will finish first.
As its clock is ticking slower, it\'ll take longer to perform the same calculation...from your point of view. The Lorentz transformation gives the ratio by which the travelling clock will slow:
γâ1=(1âv2/c2)ââââââââââ=(1â0.52ââââââââ)â0.86, (or γâ1.154)
Second question meaningless given the above; if it landed back on your desk after a year\'s round trip, your desktop machine would be finished, it wouldn\'t (from the above, if you start 1 Jan one year, start looking for an answer midway through Feb the year after).
Here it gets interesting. If it was orbiting a planet, gravitation comes into play, and with it general relativity. For example, Wikipedia says GPS satellites lose ~7ns/day due to special relativity, but gain ~45ns a day due to general relativity. So instead of cruising at 0.5c, you might want to fling your computer off to \'park\' far away from really big planets.
Possible? Yes. Feasible? Depends on the length of your calculation, the cost of building the equipment needed to achieve it, and the benefits of the -- possibly marginal -- decrease in calculation time. I suppose one might conceive of some futuristic \'space station supercomputer receiving station\' in orbit around a black hole.
You\'re thinking about gravitational time dilation.
Time machines do exists. If you go in a space ship and travel around the supermassive blackhole in the center of Milky Way, close enough to not fall in it, and then come back to Earth, you just traveled to the future (relative to the space further from you). So in that thinking line, if you want to make a computer run faster by gravitational time dilation, you must be living in an environment of extremely high gravity and put your computer outside this environment, where time runs faster relative to you. A computer orbiting the Earth will be faster than a computer here, but just by a few nanoseconds.
Would we be able to recieve the broadcast from this computer? Yes, the same way we are able to receive pictures sent from Jupiter by Voyager 1 and 2, we would need to count the interference in the transmission but nothing more than stretching/shrinking waves.
Ive found an answer off a different forum here it is if your interested.
1) No, because it\'s actually going slower from your perspective. In special relativity, \"the fastest wristwatch is always your own\".
2) Yes, but remember that it\'s farther away from us now, so it will take some time to get to us (if it was travelling at 0.5c it will take 50% longer to get to us).
3) Mostly in that as an observer the redshift effect would be different.
4) It would be feasible to accelerate to dialate time, but that wouldn\'t be useful.
Since you only mention acceleration to 0.5c, we\'ll assume we\'re dealing with special relativity alone. In this case, your accelerating computer \'loses time\' -- its clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles.. Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from your point of view -- the computer on your desk will finish first.
As its clock is ticking slower, it\'ll take longer to perform the same calculation...from your point of view. The Lorentz transformation gives the ratio by which the travelling clock will slow:
γâ1=(1âv2/c2)ââââââââââ=(1â0.52ââââââââ)â0.86, (or γâ1.154)
Second question meaningless given the above; if it landed back on your desk after a year\'s round trip, your desktop machine would be finished, it wouldn\'t (from the above, if you start 1 Jan one year, start looking for an answer midway through Feb the year after).
Here it gets interesting. If it was orbiting a planet, gravitation comes into play, and with it general relativity. For example, Wikipedia says GPS satellites lose ~7ns/day due to special relativity, but gain ~45ns a day due to general relativity. So instead of cruising at 0.5c, you might want to fling your computer off to \'park\' far away from really big planets.
Possible? Yes. Feasible? Depends on the length of your calculation, the cost of building the equipment needed to achieve it, and the benefits of the -- possibly marginal -- decrease in calculation time. I suppose one might conceive of some futuristic \'space station supercomputer receiving station\' in orbit around a black hole.
You\'re thinking about gravitational time dilation.
Time machines do exists. If you go in a space ship and travel around the supermassive blackhole in the center of Milky Way, close enough to not fall in it, and then come back to Earth, you just traveled to the future (relative to the space further from you). So in that thinking line, if you want to make a computer run faster by gravitational time dilation, you must be living in an environment of extremely high gravity and put your computer outside this environment, where time runs faster relative to you. A computer orbiting the Earth will be faster than a computer here, but just by a few nanoseconds.
Would we be able to recieve the broadcast from this computer? Yes, the same way we are able to receive pictures sent from Jupiter by Voyager 1 and 2, we would need to count the interference in the transmission but nothing more than stretching/shrinking waves.